Couple must tear down home gym they built on their driveway after neighbours moaned that it meant one of their cars would have to be parked out on street

Daily Mail​

28-05-2025

A couple have been ordered to tear down a home gym they built on their own driveway - after neighbours complained it would mean one of their cars would have to be parked on the street.
Paul Willis, 42, and Emma Woodley, 43, from Basingstoke, had the building - thought to be worth tens of thousands of pounds - put up in one of two parking spaces which came with the house they bought last year.
But neighbours on the new estate were not happy and argued it meant one of the couple's cars would have to be parked out in the street.
The couple argued that they do not park on the street and instead use nearby unallocated spaces, adding that they would lose substantial income if made to tear down the building, where Mr Willis carries out personal training sessions with clients.
Councillors have now denied their retrospective application voicing concerns it would 'set a precedent' and that if other residents did the same, there may be 'no other parking spaces' left on the smart estate they've moved into.
They've now been ordered to remove the gym and reinstate the parking area within six months, a decision Ms Woodley has described as 'ludicrous'.
The planning saga began shortly after they moved into their £440,000 property in Basingstoke, Hampshire, last year.
Mr Willis runs his own personal training business and, having researched planning rules, the couple believed they were allowed to build the single storey gym without needing permission.
It was only after building began on the gym that a complaint was made to the council, and the couple were told to put in a retroactive planning application. But when they submitted their application, neighbours objected.
Local Olivia Lucas said in a letter: 'As a resident... we already have parking issues with either cars parking fully on the road and other users being unable to get past, or parking on the pavements and pedestrians routinely putting themselves, children and dogs in danger having to walk out from a blind spot behind one of these cars.
'As this property has already been erected I have witnessed the danger that this owner is causing by parking their car on the road rather than on the driveway that once was (not to mention all of their clients' [sic] cars on a Tuesday night).
'People turning into [the road] have to use up the full width of the road because they are unable to see the any oncoming traffic due to [their] car being parked on the road and therefore a head-on collision is inevitable at some point.'
She said that the gym 'causes the owners to park on the corner of the road - causing the blind spot'.
Ms Woodley said she and her partner park a second car they own in unallocated spaces nearby.
The IT manager said: 'Of the 18 that are unallocated spaces, there are five to six empty at any one time.'
Ms Woodley continued: 'We didn't use both of those spaces prior to the building being built anyway, just because of the constant need to keep pulling out into a road which we didn't have good visibility to see, causing more of a hindrance to pedestrians and drivers.
'There's a bend to the road and a hill, so we have to be on the road to get safe visibility about whether it's safe to move out or not.'
Ms Woodley added that the removal of the gym would have a 'significant cost impact' on the couple.
Mr Willis is set to lose out on income he earns from fitness instructing if the gym is knocked down.
At the planning meeting to decide if their outbuilding would be allowed, Ms Woodley said: 'It's used as a gym as my partner is a part-time personal trainer.'
She said the home gym was used for personal training seven hours a week, and clients are asked to park in unallocated spaces at the nearby shops or walk to the gym rather than park in neighbouring spaces.
Ms Woodley said: 'We're planning on being here until we retire.
'Obviously we will have the loss of income on a monthly basis which means that things will be a struggle, we might have to sell the property.
'We're looking at alternative options of whether there's anything we can do.'
Ms Woodley suggested the couple are looking into using some space in their garden for an outbuilding, but regretted that that would make their garden smaller.
'There was no mention anywhere about the council rules around not changing the use of a parking space', she said.
'It's clearly evident when we walk around the estate, we have got people that have put sheds on their parking spaces.
'Even caravans - what's the difference between us and using it for a caravan? It just seems ludicrous.'
At the planning meeting, Miss Woodley said: 'The loss of one parking space does not materially impact parking provision within the development.
'We have expressed to the planning officer that we would be willing to convert the outbuilding into a garage.'
Councillor Paul Miller said that parking policies are not usually set aside when planning applications are being considered.
He said: 'For retrospective applications concerning important policies, every councillor in every ward has to think three times about them.
'Parking is a national problem all over; we all know that. Another car unable to park at a property is another car that's going to be somewhere else.'
Councillor Karen Watts said: 'I don't know if there is something to consider here, it could set a precedent that other people could do the same in the area and there would be no other parking spaces.'
Ms Woodley said that her and her partner 'aren't parking on the road, people do park on the road, but they aren't from our house'.
She claimed: 'The planning officer parked on the road outside when she came to visit and do the inspection, even though the unallocated space opposite was free.'
Councillor Paul Gaskell asked planning officers whether another parking space could be made with the land the couple own.
The officer said it would be the couple's responsibility as to whether this could be done.
Seven councillors voted for the refusal of the application, one voted against and one abstained.